Discourse analysis

About: Discourse analysis is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 16055 publications have been published within this topic receiving 515384 citations. The topic is also known as: DA & discourse studies.

Language has a heart

Abstract: In the past several years, the social sciences have been articulating how emotion impacts cognition and social action. Linguists have underestimated the extent to which grammatical and discourse structures serve affective ends. A cross-linguistic analysis indicates that languages dedicate phonological, morpho-syntactic and discourse features to intensify and specify attitudes, moods, feelings and dispositions. These features provide an affective frame for propositions encoded. Suchframes can be consideredas pari of the Information expressed, äs affective comments on the expressed propositions they address. These comments Interface with gestural cues to provide interlocutors with critical Information on which to base subsequent social actions.

Discourse Analysis and the Study of Classroom Language and Literacy Events: A Microethnographic Perspective

Abstract: The authors present a social linguistic/social interactional approach to the discourse analysis of classroom language and literacy events. Building on recent theories in interactional sociolinguistics, literary theory, social anthropology, critical discourse analysis, and the New Literacy Studies, they describe a microethnographic approach to discourse analysis that provides a reflexive and recursive research process that continually questions what counts as knowledge in and of the interactions among teachers and students. The approach combines attention to how people use language and other systems of communication in constructing classroom events with attention to social, cultural, and political processes. The focus of attention is on actual people acting and reacting to each other, creating and recreating the worlds in which they live. One contribution of the microethnographic approach is to highlight the conception of people as complex, multi-dimensional actors who together use what is given by culture, language, social, and economic capital to create new meanings, social relationships and possibilities, and to recreate culture and language. The approach presented by the authors does not separate methodological, theoretical, and epistemological issues. Instead, they argue that research always involves a dialectical relationship among the object of the research, the theoretical frameworks and methodologies driving the research, and the situations within which the research is being conducted. Discourse Analysis and the Study of Classroom Language and Literacy Events: A Microethnographic Perspective: *introduces key constructs and the intellectual and disciplinary foundations of the microethnographic approach; *addresses the use of this approach to gain insight into three often discussed issues in research on classroom literacy events--classroom literacy events as cultural action, the social construction of identity, and power relations in and through classroom literacy events; *presents transcripts of classroom literacy events to illustrate how theoretical constructs, the research issue, the research site, methods, research techniques, and previous studies of discourse analysis come together to constitute a discourse analysis; and *discusses the complexity of "locating" microethnographic discourse analysis studies within the field of literacy studies and within broader intellectual movements. This volume is of broad interest and will be widely welcomed by scholars and students in the field language and literacy studies, educational researchers focusing on analysis of classroom discourse, educational sociolinguists, and sociologists and anthropologists focusing on face-to-face interaction and language use.

Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge

Abstract: In this study we investigated junior high school students' processes of argumentation and cognitive development in science and socioscientific lessons. Detailed studies of the relationship between argumentation and the development of scientific knowledge are rare. Using video and audio documents of small group and classroom discussions, the quality and frequency of students' argumentation was analyzed using a schema based on the work of Toulmin (1958). In parallel, students' development and use of scientific knowledge was also investigated, drawing on a schema for determining the content and level of abstraction of students' meaning-making. These two complementary analyses enabled an exploration of their impact on each other. The microanalysis of student discourse showed that: (a) when engaging in argumentation students draw on their prior experiences and knowledge; (b) such activity enables students to consolidate their existing knowledge and elaborate their science understanding at relatively high levels of abstraction. The results also suggest that students can acquire a higher quality of argumentation that consists of well-grounded knowledge with a relatively low level of abstraction. The findings further suggest that the main indicator of whether or not a high quality of argument is likely to be attained is students' familiarity and understanding of the content of the task. The major implication of this work for developing argumentation in the classroom is the need to consider the nature and extent of students' content-specific experiences and knowledge prior to asking them to engage in argumentation. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 45: 101–131, 2008

Discourse Patterns and Collaborative Scientific Reasoning in Peer and Teacher-Guided Discussions

Abstract: In this study we examined the discourse components, interaction patterns, and reasoning complexity of 4 groups of 12 Grade 8 students in 2 science classrooms as they constructed mental models of the nature of matter, both on their own and with teacher guidance. Interactions within peer and teacher-guided small group discussions were videotaped and audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed in a variety of ways. The key act of participants in both peer and teacher-guided groups was working with weak or incomplete ideas until they improved. How this was accomplished differed somewhat depending on the presence or absence of a teacher in the discussion. Teachers acted as a catalyst in discussions, prompting students to expand and clarify their thinking without providing direct information. Teacher-guided discussions were a more efficient means of attaining higher levels of reasoning and higher quality explanations, but peer discussions tended to be more generative and exploratory. Students' discourse was more vari...

The Community of Practice: Theories and methodologies in language and gender research

Abstract: This article provides an introduction to this issue of Language in Societyby exploring the relationship of the concept of Community of Practice (CofP) to related terms and theoretical frameworks. The criterial characteristics and constitutive features of a CofP are examined; the article points out how a CofP framework is distinguished from other sociolinguistic and social psychological frameworks, including social identity theory, speech community, social network and social constructionist approaches. (Community of Practice, speech community, gender, sex, social practice, ethnographic sociolinguistics, discourse analysis) The term “Community of Practice” (CofP) has recently shouldered its way into the sociolinguistic lexicon. The purpose of this issue of Language in Societyis to provide analyses of language variation, discourse, and language use that illustrate the potential (and also the limits) of this concept as a theoretical and methodological basis for inquiry. It is not generally helpful to add a term to one’s field unless it is intended to serve some demonstrably useful purpose. The term “Community of Practice” bears a strong similarity to the existing term “speech community ” ‐ a concept that has proved to be a productive and useful tool for research into the orderly heterogeneity of language in its social setting; thus it must be shown how the CofP in some way takes us farther toward our goal of understanding the constraints on natural language variation. In addition, some sociolinguists may see in the CofP a tool for the description of language variation that bears a strong resemblance to fundamental principles Language in Society28, 173‐183. Printed in the United States of America